Monday, April 19, 2010

Still No Loophole Closure



ABC News reports on the total lack of progress in Virginia in closing the gun show loophole.

It has been three years since Omar Samaha last saw his sister Reema alive. Reema was one of 32 victims whose life was taken in the tragic shootings at Virginia Tech University. This weekend marks the third anniversary.

Images of Reema dancing the weekend before the attacks are still fresh in her family's mind.

"It's nothing you really get over," family member Nina Samaha-Reiten said.

And three years later, Reema's family is also not over the fight; the fight to close what many consider a glaring loophole in Virginia's gun laws.

It is called the gun show "loophole" and as it exists, anyone can buy a gun from a private dealer without a background check.

And early this week, just one day before the third anniversary, three Virginia congressmen, urged their colleagues to reconsider closing the loophole.


I guess in the home state of the NRA, the same state where the governor went to Pat Robertson's University, we shouldn't expect much more. But, I find it surprising that gun owners themselves don't make this happen. The more they resist background checks for all gun transfers the more the rest of their arguments fall under suspicion. It's hard to believe they can be so selfish and self-centered that in order to not be inconvenienced themselves they would allow something like this to go on.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

7 comments:

  1. Shame on ABC for using those dead kids to push an unrelated political agenda.

    The nutjob that did those killings did not buy his guns at a gun show, nor did he buy them from a private seller (no such thing as a "private dealer"). In fact, the wacko bought them from a licensed dealer and did go through the background check that ABC is touting as something that could have stopped all of this.

    Shame on ABC and all of the anti-freedom loons that would use such a tragedy for solely political purposes.

    ReplyDelete
  2. When someone's child is killed by a drunk driver, they often push for laws that might have prevented it.

    When someone's child is killed by a sexual predator , they often push for laws that might have prevented that.

    With gun control, it's different. Gun control advocates shamelessly recruit relatives to promote not something that might have prevented it, but rather whatever is the next item on their political agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mikeb: "But, I find it surprising that gun owners themselves don't make this happen. The more they resist background checks for all gun transfers the more the rest of their arguments fall under suspicion."

    I have stated my position often: I WOULD agree to support it -- if the major gun control figures who are pushing it gave clear and credible evidence that they would cease other attacks on gun shows.

    ReplyDelete
  4. MikeB wrote: But, I find it surprising that gun owners themselves don't make this happen. The more they resist background checks for all gun transfers the more the rest of their arguments fall under suspicion.

    I don't oppose background checks, per se. But I strongly oppose gun registration. Sebastian had a wonderful post that outlined our concerns and possible compromises. So which do you actually want, background checks or gun registrations? Because I don't think it is fair to demand one when you really want the other.

    ReplyDelete
  5. RuffRidr, I would like both. They kinda go together, don't you think?

    ReplyDelete
  6. They do go together and that's why I oppose both.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I just blogged on this very subject. It's not a common sense anything, it's just another anti-gun law.

    see my post here.

    Having the police know where every gun is completely removes the political empowerment of of armed civilians. And it affects criminals/murderers very little, because with money and motivation and no care for the law, they'll find the weapons they need.

    ReplyDelete